TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-1-97 they had sent sheets of laminated Duplex Paper Board for screen printing to a job worker in a three-wheeler which was intercepted and seized by the Central Excise officers on the ground that proper procedure as prescribed under Rule 57F(4) and (6) of the Central Excise Rules was not followed; that the officers also seized carton/ boxes valued at Rs. 1,20,681/- and varnished paper valued at Rs. 2,59,065.50 which had not been accounted in the statutory records; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order has ordered as under : (i) Inputs (unprinted/laminated Duplex Paper Board) cleared for printing on job work should have been removed after debiting 10% duty; (ii) Lamination and Varnishing of Paper sheets is excisable under Heading 48.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; (iii) Cost of packing is required to be added to the assessable value; 3.The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants receive orders for printed laminated/varnished paper sheets; that the lamination/varnishing is undertaken either on printed or unprinted paper sheets; that in case lamination/varnishing is required on printed sheets, the sheets are printed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Johnson Johnson Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 284 (S.C.) (iii) Sri Kumar Agencies v. CCE - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 483 (T) (iv) Webimpressions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 370 (T). 4.2He also stated that HSN Explanatory Notes for Chapter 48 makes it clear that Chapter 48 includes printed paper provided that the printing is merely incidental to the use of the paper for wrapping, writing, etc. and that the goods do not constitute printed matter of Chapter 49; that Note 4 to Chapter 49 of HSN and Explanatory Notes relating to Heading 49.01 of HSN make it abundantly clear that the product in question is classifiable under Heading 49.01 only. 5.1He further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding that the art and development charges as well as packing charges are includible in the assessable value; that the development work is undertaken only in cases where positives of the art work are not provided by the customers; that thus, the art and development charges are not a pre-condition for sale; that the buyers have not consented to the payment and the amount has not been paid by the buyers in most of the cases; that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is bad in law. He relied upon the decision in G.S. Enterprises v. CCE - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 387 (T). 6.Countering the arguments, Shri Vikas Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and submitted that no material/evidence has been brought on record to show that the Appellants are mostly undertaking the printing first followed by lamination/varnishing; that the very fact that the impugned product is being sent for screen printing is sufficient to prove its marketability. He further submitted that Heading 48.11 of the Central Excise Tariff covers coated or covered paper or paper Board (printed or surface decorated); that lamination/varnishing process makes the article a different article known as laminated or varnished paper and as such the process amounts to manufacture; that packing charges are includible as the impugned goods are removed from the factory in the said packing and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of India v. MRF Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), the cost of such packing will form the part of the assessable value; that as art and design development is essential for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to manufacture. We also find no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate that the products in question are not marketable. For the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty the basic requirements are that the goods should be manufactured and it should be capable of being brought to the market for being bought and sold. Mere fact that the product is an intermediary product is not sufficient to hold that it is not marketable. The learned Senior Departmental Representative has rightly contended that if the laminated sheets were not properly done, the same could not be sent for screen printing. The goods are not in semi-finished conditions. We also observe that the laminated/varnished goods are being sent to the job worker. This fact also goes to show that the products are capable of being brought to the market for being bought and sold. The decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate are not applicable to the facts of the present matter as the products were found to be not capable of being brought to market for being bought and sold. For instance in the case of United Phosphorus, Supreme Court observed that the impugned products - Mercuric Acetate, Para Chloro Phenyl Val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent matters as facts are different. In Webimpressions case, supra, the classification in dispute was of printed Gay wrapper. In the said decision, the Appellants had undertaken printing job on duty paid paper which was held to be classifiable under sub-heading 4901.90. In Metagraph's case, supra, the Supreme Court has held that printed aluminium labels are products of printing industry as the printing of the label was not incidental to its use but primary. The aspect of lamination was not involved in these decisions, as well as in Johnson Johnson case and Sri Kumar Agencies case. We, therefore, hold that products in question are classifiable under Heading 48.11 of the Tariff. 9.The Commissioner has included packing charges in the assessable value as he has given finding that the goods are ordinarily removed from the factory in the said packing. This has not been controverted by the Appellants before us. Thus following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in MRF case, the cost of packing in which the goods are sold in the wholesale market is to be included in the assessable value. We also agree with the findings of the Commissioner that art and development charges are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
